Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 38077

(FADECs), the FADECs were shown to

comply with the HIRF special

conditions. The FAA HIRF requirements

have been consistent, and Boeing has

been aware of and complied with these

requirements for several years.

Boeing further states that the HIRF

special condition would effectively

deter them from upgrading electronic

equipment that incorporates safety and

reliability enhancing features. The FAA

requirements in the HIRF special

condition reflect the need to address a

known environmental hazard,

recognized by the technical and

regulatory community worldwide.

Protection against this known

environmental hazard is required by

FAA for all systems performing

functions whose failure would

contribute to or cause a catastrophic

failure condition that would prevent the

continued safe flight and landing of the

airplane. This policy applies, regardless

of whether the new or significantly

changed component, equipment, or

system is intended to improve an

unrelated safety or reliability issue.

Improving one aspect of safety or

reliability should not degrade another

aspect of safety.

The FAA has consistently applied the

requirements in the HIRF special

conditions to certification programs for

over 12 years, regardless of whether the

certification was based on a new

airplane type, or a change to an existing

airplane. Changing this policy for one

model of Boeing airplanes would not be

consistent with the FAA policy over the

last 12 years. Therefore, special

conditions for the 757–300 are adopted

as proposed in Notice 25–98–02–SC.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special

conditions are applicable initially to the

Model 757–300 airplane. Should Boeing

apply at a later date for a change to the

type certificate to include another

model incorporating the same novel or

unusual design feature, the special

conditions would apply to that model as

well, under the provisions of

§ 21.101(a)(1).

Conclusion

This action affects certain design

features only on the Model 757–300. It

is not a rule of general applicability and

affects only the manufacturer who

applied to the FAA for approval of these

features on this model.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these

special conditions is as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,

44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the following special

conditions are issued as part of the type

certification basis for Boeing Model

757–300 series airplanes.

1. Protection from Unwanted Effects

of High-Intensity Radiated Fields

(HIRF). Each electrical and electronic

system that performs critical functions

must be designed and installed to

ensure that the operation and

operational capability of these systems

to perform critical functions are not

adversely affected when the airplane is

exposed to high-intensity radiated

fields.

2. For the purpose of this special

condition, the following definition

applies:

Critical Functions. Functions whose

failure would contribute to or cause a

failure condition that would prevent the

continued safe flight and landing of the

airplane.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18857 Filed 7–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–41–AD; Amendment

39–10651; AD 98–15–01]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa

Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER) Model EMB–145 Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain EMBRAER Model

EMB–145 series airplanes, that requires

a one-time inspection to detect bulging

or cracking of the pitot 1 and pitot 2

drain tubes in the forward electronic

compartment; and cleaning the tubes or

replacing drain tubes with new tubes, if

necessary. This amendment also

requires modification of the pitot/static

system. This amendment is prompted

by issuance of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information by a foreign

civil airworthiness authority. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to detect and correct bulging

and cracking of the pitot 1 and pitot 2

drain tubes in the forward electronic

compartment caused by cycles of water

freezing and expanding inside the tubes,

which could result in erroneous

airspeed indications to the flight crew

and reduced operational safety in all

phases of flight.

DATES: Effective August 19, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of August 19,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica

S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP

12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos—SP,

Brazil. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Small

Airplane Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft

Certification Office, One Crown Center,

1895 Phoenix Boulevard, suite 450,

Atlanta, Georgia; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil

Berryman, Aerospace Engineer, Systems

and Flight Test Branch, ACE–116A,

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate,

Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office,

One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia

30337–2748; telephone (770) 703–6066;

fax (770) 703–6097.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain EMBRAER

Model EMB–145 series airplanes was

published in the Federal Register on

April 8, 1998 (63 FR 17130). That action

proposed to require a one-time

inspection to detect bulging or cracking

of the pitot 1 and pitot 2 drain tubes in

the forward electronic compartment;

and cleaning the tubes or replacing

drain tubes with new tubes, if

necessary. That action also proposed

modification of the pitot/static system.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

single comment received.
38078 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

Request to Provide Option for

Compliance With Inspection

One commenter suggests that

clarification should be added to

paragraph (b) of the proposed AD to

specify that if operators have

accomplished the actions described in

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–34–

0008, it is no longer necessary to

accomplish the one-time visual

inspection described in EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–34–0010, as

required by paragraph (a) of the

proposed AD. The commenter states

that EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–

34–0008 accomplishes the same system

check as that specified in EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–34–0010 and, in

addition, replaces the problem lines.

The FAA agrees that accomplishment

of the actions specified in EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–34–0008, dated

September 10, 1997, would eliminate

the need to accomplish the one-time

visual inspection described in

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–34–

0010, Change 01, dated September 25,

1997. A new paragraph (c) has been

added to this final rule to remove the

requirement to accomplish paragraph (a)

if the action required by paragraph (b)

has been accomplished prior to the

effective date of this AD, or is

accomplished within the compliance

time specified in paragraph (a).

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comment noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the change

previously described. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 15 airplanes

of U.S. registry will be affected by this

AD.

It will take approximately 2 work

hours per airplane to accomplish the

required inspection, at an average labor

rate of $60 per work hour. Based on

these figures, the cost impact of the

inspection required by this AD on U.S.

operators is estimated to be $1,800, or

$120 per airplane.

In addition, it will take approximately

2 work hours per airplane to accomplish

the modification required by this AD, at

an average labor rate of $60 per work

hour. Required parts will be supplied by

the manufacturer at no cost to the

operators. Based on these figures, the

cost impact of the modification required

by this AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $1,800, or $120 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the requirements of this AD action, and

that no operator would accomplish

those actions in the future if this AD

were not adopted.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this final rule does

not have sufficient federalism

implications to warrant the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this action (1) is not a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a

‘‘significant rule’’ under DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3)

will not have a significant economic

impact, positive or negative, on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A final evaluation has

been prepared for this action and it is

contained in the Rules Docket. A copy

of it may be obtained from the Rules

Docket at the location provided under

the caption ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Incorporation by reference,

Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration amends part 39 of the

Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

98–15–01 Empresa Brasileira de

Aeronautica, S.A. (EMBRAER):

Amendment 39–10651. Docket 98–NM–

41–AD.

Applicability: Model EMB–145 series

airplanes, serial numbers 145004 through

145028 inclusive; certificated in any

category.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (e) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To detect and correct bulging and cracking

of the pitot 1 and pitot 2 drain tubes in the

forward electronic compartment, which

could result in erroneous airspeed

indications to the flight crew and reduced

operational safety in all phases of flight,

accomplish the following:

(a) Except as provided by paragraph (c) of

this AD, within 50 hours time-in-service after

the effective date of this AD, perform a onetime visual inspection to detect bulging or

cracking of the pitot 1 and pitot 2 drain tubes

in the forward electronic compartment, in

accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin

145–34–0010, Change 01, dated September

25, 1997.

(1) If no bulging or cracking is detected,

prior to further flight, clean the pitot tubes

in accordance with the service bulletin.

(2) If any bulging or cracking is detected in

any drain tube, prior to further flight, replace

the pitot drain tube with a new tube in

accordance with the service bulletin.

Note 2: Accomplishment of the visual

inspection, cleaning, or replacement of the

pitot 1 and pitot 2 drain tubes prior to the

effective date of this AD in accordance with

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–34–0010,

dated July 25, 1997, is considered acceptable

for compliance with the applicable action

specified by paragraph (a) of this AD.

(b) Within 400 hours time-in-service after

the effective date of this AD: Modify the

pitot/static system in accordance with

EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145–34–0008,

dated September 10, 1997.

(c) For airplanes on which the modification

required by paragraph (b) of this AD has been

accomplished prior to the effective date of

this AD, or is accomplished within the

compliance time specified in paragraph (a) of

this AD (i.e., within 50 hours time-in-service

after the effective date of this AD), the one-
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 135 /Wednesday, July 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 38079

time visual inspection specified in paragraph

(a) of this AD is not required.

(d) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install a pitot/static system on

any airplane, unless it has been modified in

accordance with EMBRAER Service Bulletin

145–34–0008, dated September 10, 1997.

(e) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA,

Small Airplane Directorate. Operators shall

submit their requests through an appropriate

FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector, who

may add comments and then send it to the

Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 3: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

(f) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

(g) The actions shall be done in accordance

with the following EMBRAER service

bulletins, which contain the specified list of

effective pages:

Service bulletin referenced and date

Page number shown

on page

Revision level

shown on page Date shown on page

145–34–0010, Change 01, September 25, 1997 ................................................................ 1, 2 1 ..................... September 25, 1997.

3–9 Original ........... July 25, 1997.

145–34–0008, September 10, 1997 .................................................................................... 1–22 Original ........... September 10, 1997.

This incorporation by reference was

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Copies may be obtained

from Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.

(EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343—CEP 12.225, Sao

Jose dos Campos—SP, Brazil. Copies may be

inspected at the FAA, Transport Airplane

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the FAA, Small Airplane

Directorate, Atlanta Aircraft Certification

Office, One Crown Center, 1895 Phoenix

Boulevard, suite 450, Atlanta, Georgia; or at

the Office of the Federal Register, 800 North

Capitol Street, NW., suite 700, Washington,

DC.

Note 4: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Brazilian airworthiness directive 97–07–

12R1, dated November 3, 1997.

(h) This amendment becomes effective on

August 19, 1998.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 6,

1998.

John J. Hickey,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 98–18470 Filed 7–14–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 98–NM–87–AD; Amendment

39–10656; AD 98–15–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model BAe 146–200A

Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain British Aerospace

Model BAe 146–200A series airplanes,

that requires a one-time inspection of

the gust damper of the elevator control

system to determine if the gust damper

is properly charged, and of the

horizontal stabilizer to detect cracking

of elevator hinge rib 1; and corrective

action, if necessary. This amendment is

prompted by the issuance of mandatory

continuing airworthiness information by

a foreign civil airworthiness authority.

The actions specified by this AD are

intended to detect and correct cracking

of elevator hinge rib 1 of the horizontal

stabilizer, which could occur if the gust

damper of the elevator control system

discharges and allows the elevator to

move freely in ground gust conditions.

Such cracking could result in damage to

the structural attachment of the elevator

to the horizontal stabilizer, and

consequent reduced controllability of

the airplane.

DATES: Effective August 19, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of August 19,

1998.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from AI(R) American Support, Inc.,

13850 Mclearen Road, Herndon,

Virginia 20171. This information may be

examined at the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), Transport

Airplane Directorate, Rules Docket,

1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,

Washington; or at the Office of the

Federal Register, 800 North Capitol

Street, NW., suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Norman B. Martenson, Manager,

International Branch, ANM–116, FAA,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601

Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington

98055–4056; telephone (425) 227–2110;

fax (425) 227–1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain British

Aerospace Model BAe 146–200A series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on April 16, 1998 (63 FR

18852). That action proposed to require

a one-time inspection of the gust

damper of the elevator control system to

determine if the gust damper is properly

charged, and of the horizontal stabilizer

to detect cracking of elevator hinge rib

1; and corrective action, if necessary.

Comments

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

single comment received.

Request To Revise Cost Information

One commenter, the manufacturer,

advises that the cost information

provided in the proposed AD contains

an error. The commenter states that the

number of BAe 146–200A series

airplanes of U.S. registry that would be

affected by the AD is 5, rather than 19,

as stated in the proposed AD. The FAA

concurs with the commenter. The cost

impact information, below, has been

revised to reflect the correct number of

affected airplanes on the U.S. register.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comment noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule with the change

described previously. The FAA has

determined that this change will neither

increase the economic burden on any

operator nor increase the scope of the

AD.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 5 British

Aerospace Model BAe 146–200A series